Reverse Spiritual Attributes

[Tancred]

I'm not sure if this has already been suggested by anyone, but could you introduce the reverse of spiritual attributes in Riddle of Steel games?

For example, a fear or character flaw like greed. Whenever a PC faces up to their fear/overcomes their greed, their negative attribute is reduced by one. When they give in too their vice or fear, it gets a point worse.

Whenever the source of that fear or vice becomes relevant, the PC takes a penalty to all actions equal to the negative attribute.

After reducing the severity of a fear or vice through facing up to it, the PC could choose to spend points on character improvements and set the negative attribute back to its previous level.

I haven't really thought it through very far, and only have the quickstart rules at present, but this would seem to introduce a Pendragon-like element, where characters have both positive and negative personality traits - honour may be balanced out by a driving ambition, for example. Are there existing gifts/flaws in TROS that this idea would interfere with?

Is this workable?

[Shreyas Sampat]

I don't see why you would want to do this.  In essence, you would be punishing the players for giving their characters weaknesses.  Thus, they shy away from interesting situations where the weaknesses become relevant.

As far as I can tell, you can duplicate character 'flaws' with properly described SAs, for much healthier results - the players push their characters to do things related to these flaws, and the characters do them well.

Put another way, when was the last time the notorious coward failed to run away?

[Jake Norwood]

I would actually more consider opening up negative traits as such as normal SAs. That way your greedy PC will actually be...greedy.

Jake

[Tancred]

Penalising players wasn't my primary thought - more that you'd get dramatic situations where a character has to overcome their greatest fear to save the kingdom, etc.

If, as a player, I took a weakness, I would want it to have an impact on my character. While pure roleplaying could do this, passions in TROS could also be handled through roleplaying alone. To me, it just sounds like a possible logical extension of the original (cool) SA concept. I'm not suggesting these things be compulsory at all either - characters don't have to take one.

I don't agree players would necessarily shy away from situations that provoke a fear - as a Seneschal, part of your job seems to suitably bait the trap, so to speak: the character confronts a fear (lessening that fear) while perhaps fulfilling another spiritual attribute. This seems 'healthy' enough to me - you can cure yourself over time, through roleplaying and overcoming emotional hurdles.

BTW, How would you duplicate flaws using current SAs? For example, I wouldn't include a hatred for an NPC a flaw, as it's handled under the current SA setup. How would you handle an acute phobia, for instance?

[Gary_Bingham]

I'm not sure that a Spirital Attribute can be defined as negative, or positive for that matter. The Polarity of an SA is of no real value. Fear could be a positive attribute in scenarios where a character is placed in a dangerous situation, and a player could use that fear to drive the character to succeed. Fear could also be negative in preventing the character from taken action and so place them in danger.

Surely the key to SA's is their application in relation to the telling of a story.

[Tancred]

I'm not sure that a Spirital Attribute can be defined as negative, or positive for that matter. The Polarity of an SA is of no real value. Fear could be a positive attribute in scenarios where a character is placed in a dangerous situation, and a player could use that fear to drive the character to succeed. Fear could also be negative in preventing the character from taken action and so place them in danger.

Makes a lot of sense. And presumably, the downside of a fear is that if you don't follow its imperitives, you may lose a point in it.

The only thing is it does seem kind of anti my intuition is that increased spiritual attributes seem like part of a character progression. As you further your passions and other largely positive drives, your character improves. By contrast, by indulging your fear and not trying to overcome it, your character improves. Sort of a weird spiritual growth. I guess 'getting over it' involves spending all your SA points in it, and getting a new one?

My intuitions are having a hard time getting around the no polarity thing, but I get your point. It's just a normal SA of greed or a fear seems to go against the generally positive trend of most SAs (with the possible exception of a hate of an NPC) - in a heroic game getting the benefit of your SA will often further the goals of the party, by using your passion to defeat the enemy, etc. A fear will usually work against the goals of the group, and perhaps lessen the 'heroicness' of SAs.

Or have I got it all backwards?

[Brian Leybourne]

I'm not sure that a Spirital Attribute can be defined as negative, or positive for that matter. The Polarity of an SA is of no real value.

Absolutely.

One example Ron is fond of telling is of a major NPC of his who had a Destiny to "Die in a ditch". The final big battle rolled around, and of course it was staged in a field filled with ditches. That NPC got his destiny dice for the battle of course, even though some might think it counter-intuitive since the dice were technically helping him avoid dying in a ditch.

The answer? SA dice are like the heroic music that swirls up at pivotal moments in films. That music lets you know that something important is happening. SA's are kind of similar, they can be "positive" or "negative", it's not relevent - what's important is that they represent important things, pivotal moments, moments of destiny (or faith, or passion, you get the idea).

That's all Ron's "Theme Music Metaphor", by the way - credit where it's due.

Brian.

[Valamir]

I would actually more consider opening up negative traits as such as normal SAs. That way your greedy PC will actually be...greedy.

Jake

Yup, with a penelty the player spends the whole game trying to justify why his supposedly greedy character WOULDN'T be greedy just then.  As a bonus...shoot, watch the avarice fly.

I'd allow this only for veteran TROS players who understand the point to the system, else I thing you'd get a lot of "This super hero now powered by vice and villainy" aspect to it.

[Eamon Voss]

For example, a fear or character flaw like greed. Whenever a PC faces up to their fear/overcomes their greed, their negative attribute is reduced by one. When they give in too their vice or fear, it gets a point worse.

The problem is that all too many players never have their characters be afraid, or would just say, 'I will myself to do it.  I must!'

So instead I would run this as a normal SA.  If you gave into the fear, you would get points to use or spend just like any other SA.  No fancy rules, just an extension of the current system.

Under this method, lets say I ran a character with Fear of Heights.  Every time I role-played that fear, I would get more Fear SA points to use and spend.  I would be reinforcing my original design concept, in the way that TROS SAs are designed to work.

This I like.

[Tancred]

[quote="Eamon Voss] So instead I would run this as a normal SA.  If you gave into the fear, you would get points to use or spend just like any other SA.  No fancy rules, just an extension of the current system.

Under this method, lets say I ran a character with Fear of Heights.  Every time I role-played that fear, I would get more Fear SA points to use and spend.  I would be reinforcing my original design concept, in the way that TROS SAs are designed to work.[/quote]

Yep, I agree. I've come round to that way of thinking. Of course, the SA would have to be of comparable gravity to other SAs - I guess an SA Fear of spiders might not be acceptable, as there's probably less of a story to be got out of it, compared to, say, 'Hatred for Count Dorko', or whoever. I guess just in the same way as 'Hatred of Brussel Sprouts' would be useless.

[Mike Holmes]

Of course, the SA would have to be of comparable gravity to other SAs - I guess an SA Fear of spiders might not be acceptable, as there's probably less of a story to be got out of it, compared to, say, 'Hatred for Count Dorko', or whoever. I guess just in the same way as 'Hatred of Brussel Sprouts' would be useless.

Not true. If the player takes these things, he should be interested in having them played out. This he probably shoudn't take the Brussel Sprouts. But if he does, there's going to be a sudden huge boom in the Brussel Sprout market. They'll be everywhere. I'm goint to be constantly plaguing the character with people offering him Brussel Sprouts. Before long he'll have killed some innocent waiter over it, and that will be propelling the plot.

"Gravity" is in the eye of the beholder.

Mike

[Ben Lehman]

Though I agree that most human vices should be modeled as normal SAs, I have been experimenting, mechanically, with a "reverse SA" system, to model such things as "Doom: Be Slain By A Knight" or "Geas: Never Refuse Hospitality."  Gaining such traits is part of the use of magic in my setting, and it is rather important that these be restrictions, rather than bonuses.

The mechanics I have worked out are the following.  The attributes range from -5 to 0.  As the attributes are role-played, they go UP, towards 0.  Further, if the trait "comes up," you lose dice equal to the value of the trait (so, if I had "Geas: Never Harm a Woman -3" and I was harming a woman, I would be at -3 dice).  If you violate the SA in some way, your trait goes down in value (towards -5).

You can spend these traits for character advancement.  This drops them down (towards -5).

Since you have these traits in addition to normal SAs -- they allow for faster advancement.  But at the cost of negative dice at key times.

I like this system.  I wouldn't use it for human flaws (like, say, a passion for wealth) but I like it for supernatural dooms, geases, taboos, and other restrictions.

yrs--
--Ben Lehman